Contents

INTRODUCTION

Part I: THE QUR`ANIC PENALTY FOR ZINA` AND HOW THE SUPPORTERS OF RAJM DEAL WITH IT

Chapter 1: The Claim That The Qur`anic Punishment Is For The Case Of An Unmarried Person Only

Chapter 2: The Claim That For Married Persons The Sunnah/Hadith Abrogated The Qur`anic Penalty Or Prescribed A Second Penalty

Chapter 3: The Claim That The Stoning Penalty Is Or Was Once Found In The Qur`an

Chapter 4: The Qur`an and the Pre-Qur`anic Penalties for Zina`

Part II: AHADITH ABOUT RAJM

Chapter 5: Death Penalty For Homosexuality, Incest, And Bestiality

Chapter 6: Rajm Of A Jewish Couple

Chapter 7: Rajm Of A Man Of Aslam

Chapter 8: Rajm Of A Woman Of Ghamid

Chapter 9: Rajm Of An Employer’s Wife

Chapter 10: Combining 100 Lashes With Banishment Or Rajm

Chapter 11: Other Ahadith About Rajm

Part III: CLAIMS OF TAWATUR AND IJMA‘

Chapter 12: Claim Of Tawatur

Chapter 13: Claim Of Ijma‘ Among Companions And Successors

Chapter 14: When And How The Consensus Was Really Formed And What Does It Mean

CONCLUSION

By Ahmad Shafaat

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning.htm

Since I was a child I've always had problem with 'Stoning to death' punishment. I've had series of arguments, my position is that the punishment mentioned in the Quran is flogging not Stoning. It's very clear, this what Allah finally gave the Prophet in Quran 24.

says who?

Op is correct. On punishment for adultery I meant

"Stoning to death" for adultery is abrogated by Qur'an. It was old law prescribed for Moses and Jesus(AS). The new law is flogging which came down with prophet Muhammadﷺ

Empiree:
Op is correct. On punishment for adultery I meant

I thought the Shariah prescribed 'punishment' is death by stoning

tartar9:
I thought the Shariah prescribed 'punishment' is death by stoning

No. That's not Quran

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes:...24:2

Although some translations like Sahih International puts "unmarried" in parenthesis

The punishment for fornication and adultery are different

Ngasky:
The punishment for fornication and adultery are different

I understand it's a matter of figh. Fiqh did not come down from Allah. I used to believe "stoning to death" is punishment for adultery. We learn as we grow. Hadith does not abrogates Quran. Qur'an sits in judgement over hadith. If Quran says A but Hadith says B on the same subject, we hold on to Qur'an first not hadith.

But I am happy though, that Ummah of Muhammadﷺ do not shy from implementing Jewish and christian law of stoning. I understand most scholars still hold stoning to death to be 'punishment' prescribed for married (adulterers)


Note, I am not faulting Islamic jurists because I am not one. I am just sharing what I have learned overtime.

Empiree:
I understand it's a matter of figh. Fiqh did not come down from Allah. I used to believe "stoning to death" is punishment for adultery. We learn as we grow. Hadith does not abrogates Quran. Qur'an sits in judgement over hadith. If Quran says A but Hadith says B on the same subject, we hold on to Qur'an first not hadith.

But I am happy though, that Ummah of Muhammadﷺ do not shy from implementing Jewish and christian law of stoning. I understand most scholars still hold stoning to death to be 'punishment' prescribed for married (adulterers)


Note, I am not faulting Islamic jurists because I am not one. I am just sharing what I have learned overtime.

I agree with you bro, when I read this work I was totally convinced. When you look at the position of the four Imams(Malik, Abu Haneefah, Shafi'e and Hanbali) Rahimahullah, their positions totally contradict each other. One of the Imams said "the Sunnah of the Prophet his is Madhab"

About the translations that placed "unmarried" in parenthesis for Suratul Nur, we should know that this Chapter was revealed purposely for Aisha(RadiAllahu anha), she was a married woman. Another verse in Suratul Nisai States that the punishment for a MARRIED slave who commits adultery, her punishment is to be halved. I wonder how Stoning could be halved.

We don't have any right to discredit our scholars, but we should also have it at the back of our minds that they're humans and ultimately make mistakes. Left to me, if a adulterer is to be punished, I'll fight for flogging because the hadith can't and would never abrogate the Qur’an.

Demmzy15:

I agree with you bro, when I read this work I was totally convinced. When you look at the position of the four Imams(Malik, Abu Haneefah, Shafi'e and Hanbali) Rahimahullah, their positions totally contradict each other. One of the Imams said "the Sunnah of the Prophet his is Madhab"

About the translations that placed "unmarried" in parenthesis for Suratul Nur, we should know that this Chapter was revealed purposely for Aisha(RadiAllahu anha), she was a married woman. Another verse in Suratul Nisai States that the punishment for a MARRIED slave who commits adultery, her punishment is to be halved. I wonder how Stoning could be halved.

We don't have any right to discredit our scholars, but we should also have it at the back of our minds that they're humans and ultimately make mistakes. Left to me, if a adulterer is to be punished, I'll fight for flogging because the hadith can't and would never abrogate the Qur’an.

Mashallah. Handsome right up. Jazakallahu kayran

Empiree:
Mashallah. Handsome right up. Jazakallahu kayran

Wa iyakum

Empiree:
"Stoning to death" for adultery is abrogated by Qur'an. It was old law prescribed for Moses and Jesus(AS). The new law is flogging which came down with prophet Muhammadﷺ

Assalam alaikum.

This conclusion is wrong, and the approach is worse; may Allah forgive us all. You cannot just abrogate and unabrogate at will. There are many established proofs for stoning being prescribed for married men and women; and that this verse is specific. There is also sufficient evidence that the prophet (saw) stoned for adultery AFTER the revelation of this verse of surat al Nur (which was not about Aisha by the way; Allah forbid). NL is just not the place for extracting such rulings; so read up on the issue more exhaustively.

http://islamqa.info/ar/179886

It may interest you to know that the prohibition of rajm for adulterers was first endorsed by the Khawarij, then the Mu'tazila. None of the Khulafa, or companions doubted its authenticity. All carried out the punishment after his (saw) death.

I also notice that you tend to 'weaken' any hadith that does not 'fit' your view of what Islam should be... like the age of Aisha (ra) on her marriage, etc, simply because the non-Muslims use it to mock Islam. The approach is not tenable. If you wish to deem a hadith 'weak', you need to explain what you think is wrong with the isnad or matn; or the approach that you followed in arriving at your conclusion. You don't just say 'the hadith cannot be correct' offhand.

Allah knows best.

Abuamam:


Assalam alaikum.

Walaikum Salam

This conclusion is wrong, and the approach is worse;

Let's see

may Allah forgive us all.

Amin

You cannot just abrogate and unabrogate at will. There are many established proofs for stoning being prescribed for married men and women; and that this verse is specific. There is also sufficient evidence that the prophet (saw) stoned for adultery AFTER the revelation of this verse of surat al Nur (which was not about Aisha by the way; Allah forbid). NL is just not the place for extracting such rulings; so read up on the issue more exhaustively.

@underlined, not at all. This is scholarly opinion as well. This is something I have been studying now for almost 6 yrs. I understand 'evidences' in the hadith and I used to hold on to such view. Let me make it clear that this is not a matter creed. It's a matter of methodology.

http://islamqa.info/ar/179886

This link doesnt seem to be it. It's in Arabic but then its translation doesn't suggest any correlation with this topic. You probably got the wrong one. But trust me, I read on abrogation from islamqa few months ago. Humm, brother, it's indeed same thing i believed growing up. They are big holes and confusions with such approach. I will explain below.

It may interest you to know that the prohibition of rajm for adulterers was first endorsed by the Khawarij, then the Mu'tazila. None of the Khulafa, or companions doubted its authenticity. All carried out the punishment after his (saw) death.

Now, pardon me here. My writing here may be a little long. I want to detail as much as I can to avoid repeating myself. On the issue of abrogation you raised, I have to admit that I have digressed from some mainstream understandings/interpretations of certain rulings. And I will tell you why. Again, this is a matter of methodology. I believe they got their methodology wrong. I want to avoid mentioning names of scholars or their descriptions while writing this.

Please understand that this is not just my own made up. This is scholarly opinion as well. That is, some scholars who also disagree with mainstream ruling on abrogation. I believe that when Qur'an talks about abrogation of any verse, it is not talking about verses within the Quran. It refers to law revealed in previous holy Book like Tawrat and Injil. This is the proper methodology. If you disagree, you are going to have problem with non-muslims who seek to understand why would Allah abrogates His own Law (within Quran). It creates confusion. Not only that, it is also in conflict with famous saying that "Quran is complete".

I will take the issue of rajm as a case study.

There is hadith associated with Umar ibn Khattab (RA) which states that there used to be a verse in the Qur'an (that is no longer there) with respect to rajm(stoning). Ref:Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194. We Muslims pretty much succumbed to this narration. I am not in position to determine authenticity of this hadith. But one thing is clear using 'proper methodology'; that, it's only Allah and His messanger that have the right to tell us which verse of the Quran or if a verse was missing. The implication of holding on to such narration is that it degenerates status of Quran. It means saying 'Quran is complete' is false (auzubillah). I dont think they realize this implication. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That aside, if the narration was true, it would be impossible to have same copy of Quran worldwide letter by letter, word for word. Fact is, it doesnt matter how authentic a hadith might be even if it
is in sahih, if it's in conflict with Qur'an's standard, I am sorry, it just doesn't fit here. I notice few months ago when malvisguy raised this question about abrogation. He was repeating it over and over but no Muslim was able to answer him. Answer provided by islamqa website that you provided is not pertinent to his question. It creates confusion and doubt. Make no mistake. I read their post on abrogation of Qura'n, I tell you, it contradicts our very claim that Qur'an is complete. This is why you see bigots keep making fun of that, like "Allah doesn't keep His word". Who created this platform for them?. Our Ulama.

Does this mean they are deficient in their understanding?, absolutely not. Sometimes their shortcomings are as a result of unavailability of the data. Islam (Qur'an) is to be understood with time without changing its original meaning. I had to explain to malvisguy that there is no abrogation in the Quran....that it is referring to old laws. That puts him in permanent state of shut up. This is not just my opinion. There are scholars right now who share my view. A muslim can not win such argument with malvisguy using "abrogation rulings" recorded and accepted by our Ulama.

Few months ago, I was listening to a lecture by a Nigerian scholar who was talking about hudood(punishment) in general until he got to rajm. He repeated the same thing that 'punishment' for adultery is "stoning" yet he has Qur'an in front of him. And right there he narrated hadith by Umar(RA) on live TV that a verse of Quran was missing. What message are you people sending to christian missionaries when such careless statement comes out of learned scholar?. The problem they have is methodology. There is no verse missing in the Quran. The correct methodology is Quran being one and only guarantee Book sits in judgement over hadith. It does not matter how authentic hadith is. If Qur'an and Hadith are saying different things on the same topic, proper methodology is to hold on to Qur'an first. But this doesnt mean throwing out the hadith. No.

Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194

I was reading on Sirat nabiy some 3 yrs ago and also listen to sheik on an interesting story of Muhammadﷺ's encounter with Jews in Medina. He found that they did not enforce the hudood in their tawrat. The incident happened that two(2) adulterers (male and female) were brought to him. The Jews actually wanted to 'set him up'. A test of his prophethood i:e his claim as a prophet. It was said that Jews never enforced the law on adulterers. The accused were brought to him and witnesses testified or confession was made by the accused. Prophetﷺ asked that Rabbi should read 'punishment' from their Holy Book, the tawrat. While Rabbi was reading, when he got to the point to declare the penalty, he covered the spot and read over it. Rosulﷺ reprimanded him, asked him to lift his finger. Then he read the penalty "rajm". Prophetﷺ sanctioned it. It was the first time the Jews ever witnessed such act carried out. They knew right there that the man was indeed a prophet but they chose they hate him (but they hate him more because muslims turned away from Jerusalem to Masjid-Haram). It was after that wahi (revelation) came down abrogating their law of stoning.

Law of abrogation is FULL TIME. Not part time. It's like saying we should face Jerusalem for fajr prayer every other fajr or we should face Kaaba every other fajr if we are to accept the idea of stoning for married, flogging for unmarried. I am not aware of stoning after old law was cancelled. I will like to see some scholarly statement on that if you have any. Thanks

My understanding is the allegation that a verse prescribing stoning as the punishment of adultery by a married man or woman is without sound foundation. Hadith can not, will not ever and ever abrogate Qur'an.........Never!

I hope you understand that this is not aqeeda issue. It's opinion based. I am not trying to window dress Islam to make non-Muslims feel good. Case of Camel urine quoted by bigoted lady is typical example. I stood by the hadith even though it sound mucky. I stood by it because, being a medical staff myself, I know those pills you and I take contain animal product

Most likely, Albaqir will agree with you on this than me

I also notice that you tend to 'weaken' any hadith that does not 'fit' your view of what Islam should be... like the age of Aisha (ra) on her marriage, etc, simply because the non-Muslims use it to mock Islam. The approach is not tenable. If you wish to deem a hadith 'weak', you need to explain what you think is wrong with the isnad or matn; or the approach that you followed in arriving at your conclusion. You don't just say 'the hadith cannot be correct' offhand.

Again, this is a matter of methodology. It's not just by my own thoughts. I learned this stuff from some scholars as well. These scholars fault some mainstream narrations without window-dressing Islam. That's absolutely not the case. Example of that is sura Maida Ayah 51, mainstream tafsir of the ayah is too literal. That's not where I am going. My focus is on Aishat's age(RA). This is really my subject. I can talk it all day long and I dont care what non-muslims say.

I understand your mainstream view on this already and i used to as well. I have watched mainstream scholars for some time and their responses are (sorry to speak), pathetic. I shall provide example without mentioning names. It was a large gathering. The YouTube video was probably 10 mins long. Most part was questions and answers. After the sheikh finished lecture, a sister asked "what if my baby starts menstruating at age 6 is she a woman and to be married off?. His response was if a girl menstruates at 6 (in our modern time), she's a woman. The lady was permitted to ask another question "even if she's married off to grown man?". Sheikh said I understand what you mean and how you feel. Bottom line is she's a woman.

Now, I don't personally know the length between first menstruation and second menstruation and third menstruation. My understanding is prophet(SAW) said her third cycle should be done at her husband's house (i:e married). I don't know if it takes years to experience second monthly cycle from the first. Maybe any sister can help me with this, please.

My point, if it takes some years from the first experience, it makes sense to marry because by the time she experiences the third cycle, she's grown up. If however 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycles are at close range, say within 6-7 yrs of age, believe me, she's still a child.

Sheikh I mentioned above replied on the hadith associated with Aishah's age being 6. Implication is, he applied age 6 literally to our modern time which he confirmed in the video. The same sheikh in another video, when answering whether music is haram, he said 'music as we know it today is haram'. I certainly agree with him on that. But girl age 6 in our modern time? No.

When Qur'an addresses issue of Aishah(RA), it portrays her as a woman. Not a child.

The other argument mainstream used was a 6 yr old girl at that time was 'big'. Hum, bro, trust me, I use this argument if i want to be wacky with bigots. What they say doesn't bother me but it's never my 'official' creed on this issue.

Here is the implication of the above method. First, mainstream appeared to have accepted this tradition because it's in "sahih hadith". If you accept this, that a 6 yrs old girl at that time was 'big', the implication of this is there is another hadith quoted by usermane portraying a 6 yr old Aisha playing dolls with her friends. Playing with dolls is characteristic of a child. This hadith, which I deliberately refused to quote here refuted such unfounded excuse. Usermane was right when he said this is blasphemy coming from what he termed "orthodox Muslims". I agree with him on this. You have to understand that there are some folks playing games with hadith. I have learned from scholars that they have placed hadith on electronic(computer) to be able to edit them. I am telling you, some of them are not in Sahih (tangible) book. So no, I do not believe the narration attributed to our mother Aisha's age being 6. This hadith was fabricated. You may disagree though.

There should be little room for NOT answering non-muslims questions especially in cases like this. Some of them make fun like "hey if you ask muslims about this and that, they gonna tell you 'Allah knows best'". This is making fun of us. That's why in most cases, i am able to answer some silly things they post because I have been learning proper methodology for 6 yrs now. It helps.

Let me give you example. A brother opened a thread some yrs back or maybe he was answering questions regarding prophet's marriage to Aisha(PBUT). It was questions about tawhid in the beginning until the whole thing turned around. A christian asked his view about 54 yr old's marriage to 6 yr old Aisha. The brother said that's "culture, it has nothing to do with Islam". A christian said 'but you said your prophet is a role model for everything". The brother replied same as above. Then the christian guy said does that mean we can not trust your prophet on the issue of marriage then?. That was the end of the thread. The thread still open. I just don't have idea where it is. Reading from the thread, the christian was 'sincere' in his quest for knowledge even though he might be frivolous at some point.

So I sometimes do not use mainstream view in debate. This is why many brothers here can not squash usermane. The guy is smart. But he can't crush them either. I was silently reading their arguments back and fourth last yr until i jumped in between. He had to give up on me because my method was different. He said it himself that he gave up on me. He studied and truly captured mainstream ideology and used it against them. Sorry for the long-winded post.

Allah knows best.

Truly, He is

Empiree:

@underlined, not at all. This is scholarly opinion as well. This is something I have been studying now for almost 6 yrs. I understand 'evidences' in the hadith and I used to hold on to such view. Let me make it clear that this is not a matter creed. It's a matter of methodology.
This link doesnt seem to be it. It's in Arabic but then its translation doesn't suggest any correlation with this topic. You probably got the wrong one. But trust me, I read on abrogation from islamqa few months ago. Humm, brother, it's indeed same thing i believed growing up. They are big holes and confusions with such approach. I will explain below.

The link is correct. I just used it, and it is titled "the shubuhat about the rajm hadd for the muhsin" a questiin answered by sheikh alMunajjid.

Empiree:

Now, pardon me here. My writing here may be a little long. I want to detail as much as I can to avoid repeating myself. On the issue of abrogation you raised, I have to admit that I have digressed from some mainstream understandings/interpretations of certain rulings. And I will tell you why. Again, this is a matter of methodology. I believe they got their methodology wrong. I want to avoid mentioning names of scholars or their descriptions while writing this.
Please understand that this is not just my own made up. This is scholarly opinion as well. That is, some scholars who also disagree with mainstream ruling on abrogation. I believe that when Qur'an talks about abrogation of any verse, it was not taking about verses within the Quran. It refers to law revealed in previous holy Book like Tawrat and Injil. This is the proper methodology. If you disagree, you are going to have problem with non-muslims who seek to understand why would Allah abrogates His own Law (within Quran). It creates confusion. Not only that, it is also in conflict with famous saying that "Quran is complete".

That is a misconception. The Sahaba and the Tabi'un specifically understood abrogation in the context that the mainstream view holds it today. You are basically saying that the Khulafa and the other companions were wrong in their understanding of the meaning of abrogation.

Empiree:

I will take the issue of rajm as a case study.
There is hadith associated with Umar ibn Khattab (RA) which states that there used to be a verse in the Qur'an (that is no longer there) with respect to rajm(stoning). Ref:Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194. We Muslims pretty much succumbed to this narration. I am not in position to determine authenticity of this hadith. But one thing is clear using 'proper methodology'; that, it's only Allah and His messanger that have the right to tell us which verse of the Quran or if a verse was missing. The implication of holding on to such narration is that it degenerates status of Quran. It means saying 'Quran is complete' is false (auzubillah). I dont think they realize this implication. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Umar ibn al Khattab was not the only companion who spoke about an abrogated verse (s) in the Quran. The only objection you feel you have is that it degenerates the status of the Quran. I do not know why that is. The make-up of the Quran was fluid until the death of the prophet (saw). It was the prophet (saw) himself who prevented Umar (ra) from writing down the verse of the rajm. New verses were revealed and others were abrogated through the prophet's lifetime.

In any case, the hadith on rajm does not abrogate the Quranic verse in surat al Nur. It SPECIFIES it. This is called takhsees. Again there are many examples of such hadith of takhsees.

Empiree:

That aside, if the narration was true, it would be impossible to have same copy of Quran worldwide letter by letter, word for word. Fact is, it doesnt matter how authentic a hadith might be even if it is in sahih, if it's in conflict with Qur'an's standard, I am sorry, it just doesn't fit here. I notice few months ago when malvisguy raised this question about abrogation. He was repeating it over and over but no Muslim was able to answer him. Answer provided by islamqa website that you provided is not pertinent to his question. It creates confusion and doubt. Make no mistake. I read their post on abrogation of Qura'n, I tell you, it contradicts our very claim that Qur'an is complete. This is why you see bigots keep making fun of that, like "Allah doesn't keep His word". Who created this platform for them?. Our Ulama.

It always comes back to what THEY think of our laws. This has been opening doors to our 'apologisers', where we undermine the sources of Islam because we need to be ingratiating. Abrogation is a reality. There are extensive tomes written on the subject of abrogated verses, and as you are a Muslim, it will be unnecessary to repeat these here. It is telling that all the companions acted on the concept of abrogation and affirmed it... unless you think they all lied; as the Shi'a affirm. This did not detract from the status or completeness of the Quran in their opinions. I do not remember which of his questions you refer to, but naturally, if you have already justified your opinion, then any explanation of the laws of abrogation will be confusing to you. A religion that believes that their god abrogated an entire body of jewish law in order to introduce an era of 'grace' has no justification in judging others concerning the abrogation of some few laws. It is also not a matter of God 'changing His mind' subhanAllah. Gradual prohibitions were a hikma, softening the impact on a people that had just left the jahiliyya period.

Empiree:

Does this mean they are deficient in their understanding?, absolutely not. Sometimes their shortcomings are as a result of unavailability of the data. Islam (Qur'an) is to be understood with time without changing its original meaning. I had to explain to malvisguy that there is no abrogation in the Quran....that it is referring to old laws. That puts him in permanent state of shut up. This is not just my opinion. There are scholars right now who share my view. A muslim can not win such argument with malvisguy using "abrogation rulings" recorded and accepted by our Ulama.

You keep coming back to this. Your winning arguments with them is becoming an obssession. Again we do not tailor our deen to put us in the best position to win arguments.

Empiree:

Few months ago, I was listening to a lecture by a Nigerian scholar who was talking about hudood(punishment) in general until he got to rajm. He repeated the same thing that 'punishment' for adultery is "stoning" yet he has Qur'an in front of him. And right there he narrated hadith by Umar(RA) on live TV that a verse of Quran was missing. What message are you people sending to christian missionaries when such careless statement comes out of learned scholar?. The problem they have is methodology. There is no verse missing in the Quran. The correct methodology is Quran being one and only guarantee Book sits in judgement over hadith. It does not matter how authentic hadith is. If Qur'an and Hadith are saying different things on the same topic, proper methodology is to hold on to Qur'an first. But this doesnt mean throwing out the hadith. No.

This argument is specious. I will tell you why. Every sect and cult that claims to be Muslim uses it to weaken hadith that does not support their opinion. All of ten dozen branches of the Shia, the Murji'a, the Mu'tazila, the Khawarij... ALL repeat this same view. The problem is that each sect has its own 'understanding' of the Quran, so each has its own unique set of 'authentic' hadith; that inevitably support its own view of the Quran from which these 'authentic' hadith were verified...etc.

Empiree:

Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194
I was reading on Sirat nabiy some 3 yrs ago and also listen to sheik on an interesting story of Muhammadﷺ's encounter with Jews in Medina. He found that they did not enforce the hudood in their tawrat. The incident happened that two(2) adulterers (male and female) were brought to him. The Jews actually intend to 'set him up'. A test of his prophethood i:e his claim as a prophet. It was said that Jews never enforced the law on adulterers. The accused were brought to him and witnesses testified or confession was made by the accused. Prophetﷺ asked that Rabbi should read 'punishment' from their Holy Book, the tawrat. While Rabbi was reading, when he got to the point to declare the penalty, he covered the spot and read over it. Rosulﷺ reprimanded him, asked him to lift his finger. Then he read the penalty "rajm". Prophetﷺ sanctioned it. It was the first time the Jews ever witnessed such act carried out. They knew right there that the man was indeed a prophet but they chose they hate him (but they hate him more because muslims turned away from Jerusalem to Masjid-Haram). It was after that wahi (revelation) came down abrogating their law of stoning.
Law of abrogation is FULL TIME. Not part time. It's like saying we should face Jerusalem for fajr prayer every other fajr or we should face Kaaba every other fajr if we are to accept the idea of stoning for married, flogging for unmarried. I am not aware of stoning after old law was cancelled. I will like to see some scholarly statement on that if you have any. Thanks

Surat al Nur was revealed after the incident of 'ifk'. At that time, Abu Huraira (ra) had not accepted Islam. Yet the incident of the man who came to confess adultery 4times was witnessed by Abu Huraira and occurred after he had accepted Islam, hence after the revelation of surat al Nur. All this is in the link I gave you.

Empiree:

My understanding is the allegation that a verse prescribing stoning as the punishment of adultery by a married man or woman is without sound foundation. Hadith can not, will not ever and ever abrogate Qur'an.........Never!

Untrue. The abrogation of verse 2:180, granting a bequest to an existing heir, was abrogated by a hadith. I am not at home, so I cannot get you the hadith now. There are others, but I am not in a position to provide them now; sorry. This example will suffice anyhow.

Empiree:

I hope you understand that this is not aqeeda issue. It's opinion based. I am not trying to window dress Islam to make non-Muslims feel good. Case of Camel urine quoted by bigoted lady is typical example. I stood by the hadith even though it sound mucky. I stood by it because, being a medical staff myself, I know those pills you and I take contain animal products
Most likely, Albaqir will agree with you on this than me

No one is accusing your aqeedah. However, in a way, this approach does affect your aqeedah. I can tell you of other hadith that have similar isnad to this that you reject; Aisha's age for example. If the narrators lied about Aisha's age, how do you know that they did not lie
about those other issues; some of which have to do with aqeedah? If Bukhari tried to pass off two or three dozen fabricated hadith as sahih, how are you sure that he did not pass off more fabricated hadith that are concerned with aqeedah? Perhaps it is not prohibited; or perhaps it is even rewardeable; to do tawaf around graves, or hang tama'im.
The door that you open in trying to address your 'difficulty' in explaining abrogation, is actually creating a mountain of shubuhat. This is the methodology of the Rafidhis (the modern branch of Shi'a), which they use to create doubt about hadith authenticity.

Empiree:

Again, this is a matter of methodology. It's not just by my own thoughts. I learned this stuff from some scholars as well. These scholars fault some mainstream narrations without window-dressing Islam. That's absolutely not the case. Example of that is sura Maida Ayah 51, mainstream tafsir of the ayah is too literal. That's not where I am going. My focus is on Aishat's age(RA). This is really my subject. I can talk it all day long and I dont care what non-muslims say.

I know some of the scholars that hold these opinions. Some are even pushing the Shi'a agenda by posing as Sunnis. I will not mention their names either, but their voices are loud on the internet.

Empiree:

I understand your mainstream view on this already and i used to as well. I have watched mainstream scholars for some time and their responses are (sorry to speak), pathetic. I shall provide example without mentioning names. It was a large gathering. The YouTube video was probably 10 mins long. Most part was questions and answers. After the sheikh finished lecture, a sister asked "what if my baby starts menstruating at age 6 is she a woman and to be married off?. His response was if a girl menstruates at 6 (in our modern time), she's a woman. The lady was permitted to ask another question "even if she's married off to grown man?". Sheikh said I understand what you mean and how you feel. Bottom line is she's a woman.

What you do not seem to understand is that Islam is not to be taken piecemeal. It is a BODY of laws. That her daughter is menstruating is not an immedeate obligation to marry her off to an old man and have him instantly initiate sexual contact. That is the flaw in her question and it is the understanding of xtians, when they debate our laws.

Marriage also necessarily involves a God-fearing guardian, who should be able to assess his daughter's readiness for marriage. He should know of his daughter's physical and mental readiness for marriage; and act accordingly, not 'marry her off' at the first sign of menstruation. In modern times, girls are not trained for marriage from an early age, hence their mental maturity is very poor for their age. This has not always been so; and my mother tells me that her grandmother was married and built a successful home at 10years of age. My own grandmother gave birth to her first child at 13. She was an intelligent and confident woman up to her death. Individual cases differ, and the sheikh should have informed the woman of this.

Empiree:

Now, I don't personally know the length between first menstruation and second menstruation and third menstruation. My understanding is prophet(SAW) said her third cycle should be done at her husband's house (i:e married). I don't know if it takes years to experience second monthly cycle from the first. Maybe any sister can help me with this, please.
My point, if it takes some years from the first experience, it makes sense to marry because by the time she experiences the third cycle, she's grown up. If however 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycles are at close range, say within 6-7 yrs of age, believe me, she's still a child.

A child becomes adult at puberty. There should be no question on this. It matters not at what time or age this happens. The definition of adult inherently includes sexual development, which commences at puberty.

There is no specific mental and physiological change that suddenly 'matures' individuals on the night of their 18th birthdays; as the Western ideologues want us to believe. It is purely arbitrary.

Empiree:

Now, sheikh I mentioned above replied on the hadith associated with Aishah's age being 6. Implication is, he applied age 6 literally to our modern time which he confirmed in the video. The same sheikh in another video, when answering whether music is haram, he said 'music as we know it today is haram'. I certainly agree with him on that. But girl age 6 in our modern time? No.
When Allah addressed issue of Aishah(RA), He portrays her as a woman. Not a child.

It is the xtians who think of her as a child. She was an intelligent and mature adult woman, notwithstanding her tender age.

Empiree:

The other argument mainstream used was a 6 yr old girl at that time was 'big'. Hum, bro, trust me, I use this argument if i want to be wacky with bigots. What they say doesn't bother me but it's never my 'official' creed on this issue.
Here is the implication of the above method. First, mainstream appeared to have accepted this tradition because it's in "sahih hadith". If you accept this, that a 6 yrs old girl at that time was 'big', the implication of this is there is another hadith quoted by usermane portraying a 6 yr old Aisha playing dolls with her friends. Playing with dolls is characteristic of a child. This hadith, which I deliberately refused to quote here refuted such unfounded excuse. Usermane was right when he said this is blasphemy coming from what he termed "orthodox Muslims". I agree with him on this. You have to understand that there are some folks playing games with hadith. I have learned from scholars that they have placed hadith on electronic(computer) to be able to edit them. I am telling you, some of them are not in Sahih (tangible) book. So no, I do not believe the narration attributed to our mother Aisha's age being 6. This hadith was fabricated. You may disagree though.

Who in the chain of narrations fabricated it? Or are 'playing games' with the hadith? Please point out the liar there. Or was it Aisha (ra) herself?

I have asked you to provide your evidence for its fabrication. You cannot just state 'it was fabricated' offhand. This is incorrect methodology; yet you fault the methodology of the ulama of hadith.

Empiree:

There should be little room for NOT answering non-muslims questions especially in cases like this. Some of them make fun like "hey if you ask muslims about this and that, they gonna tell you 'Allah knows best'". This is making fun of us. That's why in most cases, i am able to answer some silly things they post because I have been learning proper methodology for 6 yrs now. It helps.

I have NO interest in xtians making fun of us. The sooner you are firm in your deen, the better. A Muslim is like a rock; firm; not a whimsical piece of dead leaf blown every which way by the breeze.

You claim that it is not because of the xtians that you jettison the orthodox methodology, but you have mentioned their view of Islam as a factor FIVE TIMES already. Unconsciously, their opinion matters to you. Let me tell you; Allah says; "Verily, the jews and christians will NEVER be pleased with you until you follow their milla."end. It will not stop here. We will jettison sahih hadith, then 'indefensible' Quran verses, then the whole Quran; if this path is followed... just to stop them 'laughing at us'.

Empiree:

Let me give you example. A brother opened a thread some yrs back or maybe he was answering questions regarding prophet's marriage to Aisha(PBUT). It was questions about tawhid in the beginning until the whole thing turned around. A christian asked his view about 54 yr old's marriage to 6 yr old Aisha. The brother said that's "culture, it has nothing to do with Islam". A christian said 'but you said your prophet is a role model for everything". The brother replied same as above. Then the christian guy said does that mean we can not trust your prophet on the issue of marriage then?. That was the end of the thread. The thread still open. I just don't have idea where it is. Reading from the thread, the christian was 'sincere' in his quest for knowledge even though he might be frivolous at some point.

All these are examples of poor answers due to poor knowledge, not imperfect sources. The prophet's deeds are part of Islam; he is our example and role model. His marriage to Aisha at 6; shows that it is permissible; hence it teaches us something about Islam. Everything the prophet (saw) said or did is a lecture in Islam.

Empiree:

So I sometimes do not use mainstream view in debate. This is why many brothers here can not squash usermane. The guy is smart. But he can't crush them either. I was silently reading their arguments back and fourth last yr until i jumped in between. He had to give up on me because my method was different. He said it himself that he gave up on me. He studied and truly captured mainstream ideology and used it against them. Sorry for the long-winded post.

He is a quranist. There is no difficulty in debating a quranist who accepts logical reasoning... using the correct methodology. Same with Shi'as. The reason why you were more seemingly successful is because he was less used to your system; not because you were right, and most deviant sects are trained to debate the orthodox view, while orthodox sunnis mostly do not bother specialising in debate with specific sects.

However, it is not every post that a Muslim must jump in and start arguing. I generally try to avoid sectional debates on social media; unless Islam is directly maligned. Debates with xtians are another issue entirely.

But again I repeat, Islam is not about winning argument.

Empiree:
Walaikum Salam

Let's see

Amin

@underlined, not at all. This is scholarly opinion as well. This is something I have been studying now for almost 6 yrs. I understand 'evidences' in the hadith and I used to hold on to such view. Let me make it clear that this is not a matter creed. It's a matter of methodology.

This link doesnt seem to be it. It's in Arabic but then its translation doesn't suggest any correlation with this topic. You probably got the wrong one. But trust me, I read on abrogation from islamqa few months ago. Humm, brother, it's indeed same thing i believed growing up. They are big holes and confusions with such approach. I will explain below.

Now, pardon me here. My writing here may be a little long. I want to detail as much as I can to avoid repeating myself. On the issue of abrogation you raised, I have to admit that I have digressed from some mainstream understandings/interpretations of certain rulings. And I will tell you why. Again, this is a matter of methodology. I believe they got their methodology wrong. I want to avoid mentioning names of scholars or their descriptions while writing this.

Please understand that this is not just my own made up. This is scholarly opinion as well. That is, some scholars who also disagree with mainstream ruling on abrogation. I believe that when Qur'an talks about abrogation of any verse, it was not taking about verses within the Quran. It refers to law revealed in previous holy Book like Tawrat and Injil. This is the proper methodology. If you disagree, you are going to have problem with non-muslims who seek to understand why would Allah abrogates His own Law (within Quran). It creates confusion. Not only that, it is also in conflict with famous saying that "Quran is complete".

I will take the issue of rajm as a case study.

There is hadith associated with Umar ibn Khattab (RA) which states that there used to be a verse in the Qur'an (that is no longer there) with respect to rajm(stoning). Ref:Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194. We Muslims pretty much succumbed to this narration. I am not in position to determine authenticity of this hadith. But one thing is clear using 'proper methodology'; that, it's only Allah and His messanger that have the right to tell us which verse of the Quran or if a verse was missing. The implication of holding on to such narration is that it degenerates status of Quran. It means saying 'Quran is complete' is false (auzubillah). I dont think they realize this implication. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That aside, if the narration was true, it would be impossible to have same copy of Quran worldwide letter by letter, word for word. Fact is, it doesnt matter how authentic a hadith might be even if it
is in sahih, if it's in conflict with Qur'an's standard, I am sorry, it just doesn't fit here. I notice few months ago when malvisguy raised this question about abrogation. He was repeating it over and over but no Muslim was able to answer him. Answer provided by islamqa website that you provided is not pertinent to his question. It creates confusion and doubt. Make no mistake. I read their post on abrogation of Qura'n, I tell you, it contradicts our very claim that Qur'an is complete. This is why you see bigots keep making fun of that, like "Allah doesn't keep His word". Who created this platform for them?. Our Ulama.

Does this mean they are deficient in their understanding?, absolutely not. Sometimes their shortcomings are as a result of unavailability of the data. Islam (Qur'an) is to be understood with time without changing its original meaning. I had to explain to malvisguy that there is no abrogation in the Quran....that it is referring to old laws. That puts him in permanent state of shut up. This is not just my opinion. There are scholars right now who share my view. A muslim can not win such argument with malvisguy using "abrogation rulings" recorded and accepted by our Ulama.

Few months ago, I was listening to a lecture by a Nigerian scholar who was talking about hudood(punishment) in general until he got to rajm. He repeated the same thing that 'punishment' for adultery is "stoning" yet he has Qur'an in front of him. And right there he narrated hadith by Umar(RA) on live TV that a verse of Quran was missing. What message are you people sending to christian missionaries when such careless statement comes out of learned scholar?. The problem they have is methodology. There is no verse missing in the Quran. The correct methodology is Quran being one and only guarantee Book sits in judgement over hadith. It does not matter how authentic hadith is. If Qur'an and Hadith are saying different things on the same topic, proper methodology is to hold on to Qur'an first. But this doesnt mean throwing out the hadith. No.

Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194

I was reading on Sirat nabiy some 3 yrs ago and also listen to sheik on an interesting story of Muhammadﷺ's encounter with Jews in Medina. He found that they did not enforce the hudood in their tawrat. The incident happened that two(2) adulterers (male and female) were brought to him. The Jews actually intend to 'set him up'. A test of his prophethood i:e his claim as a prophet. It was said that Jews never enforced the law on adulterers. The accused were brought to him and witnesses testified or confession was made by the accused. Prophetﷺ asked that Rabbi should read 'punishment' from their Holy Book, the tawrat. While Rabbi was reading, when he got to the point to declare the penalty, he covered the spot and read over it. Rosulﷺ reprimanded him, asked him to lift his finger. Then he read the penalty "rajm". Prophetﷺ sanctioned it. It was the first time the Jews ever witnessed such act carried out. They knew right there that the man was indeed a prophet but they chose they hate him (but they hate him more because muslims turned away from Jerusalem to Masjid-Haram). It was after that wahi (revelation) came down abrogating their law of stoning.

Law of abrogation is FULL TIME. Not part time. It's like saying we should face Jerusalem for fajr prayer every other fajr or we should face Kaaba every other fajr if we are to accept the idea of stoning for married, flogging for unmarried. I am not aware of stoning after old law was cancelled. I will like to see some scholarly statement on that if you have any. Thanks

My understanding is the allegation that a verse prescribing stoning as the punishment of adultery by a married man or woman is without sound foundation. Hadith can not, will not ever and ever abrogate Qur'an.........Never!

I hope you understand that this is not aqeeda issue. It's opinion based. I am not trying to window dress Islam to make non-Muslims feel good. Case of Camel urine quoted by bigoted lady is typical example. I stood by the hadith even though it sound mucky. I stood by it because, being a medical staff myself, I know those pills you and I take contain animal products

Most likely, Albaqir will agree with you on this than me





Again, this is a matter of methodology. It's not just by my own thoughts. I learned this stuff from some scholars as well. These scholars fault some mainstream narrations without window-dressing Islam. That's absolutely not the case. Example of that is sura Maida Ayah 51, mainstream tafsir of the ayah is too literal. That's not where I am going. My focus is on Aishat's age(RA). This is really my subject. I can talk it all day long and I dont care what non-muslims say.

I understand your mainstream view on this already and i used to as well. I have watched mainstream scholars for some time and their responses are (sorry to speak), pathetic. I shall provide example without mentioning names. It was a large gathering. The YouTube video was probably 10 mins long. Most part was questions and answers. After the sheikh finished lecture, a sister asked "what if my baby starts menstruating at age 6 is she a woman and to be married off?. His response was if a girl menstruates at 6 (in our modern time), she's a woman. The lady was permitted to ask another question "even if she's married off to grown man?". Sheikh said I understand what you mean and how you feel. Bottom line is she's a woman.

Now, I don't personally know the length between first menstruation and second menstruation and third menstruation. My understanding is prophet(SAW) said her third cycle should be done at her husband's house (i:e married). I don't know if it takes years to experience second monthly cycle from the first. Maybe any sister can help me with this, please.

My point, if it takes some years from the first experience, it makes sense to marry because by the time she experiences the third cycle, she's grown up. If however 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycles are at close range, say within 6-7 yrs of age, believe me, she's still a child.

Now, sheikh I mentioned above replied on the hadith associated with Aishah's age being 6. Implication is, he applied age 6 literally to our modern time which he confirmed in the video. The same sheikh in another video, when answering whether music is haram, he said 'music as we know it today is haram'. I certainly agree with him on that. But girl age 6 in our modern time? No.

When Allah addressed issue of Aishah(RA), He portrays her as a woman. Not a child.

The other argument mainstream used was a 6 yr old girl at that time was 'big'. Hum, bro, trust me, I use this argument if i want to be wacky with bigots. What they say doesn't bother me but it's never my 'official' creed on this issue.

Here is the implication of the above method. First, mainstream appeared to have accepted this tradition because it's in "sahih hadith". If you accept this, that a 6 yrs old girl at that time was 'big', the implication of this is there is another hadith quoted by usermane portraying a 6 yr old Aisha playing dolls with her friends. Playing with dolls is characteristic of a child. This hadith, which I deliberately refused to quote here refuted such unfounded excuse. Usermane was right when he said this is blasphemy coming from what he termed "orthodox Muslims". I agree with him on this. You have to understand that there are some folks playing games with hadith. I have learned from scholars that they have placed hadith on electronic(computer) to be able to edit them. I am telling you, some of them are not in Sahih (tangible) book. So no, I do not believe the narration attributed to our mother Aisha's age being 6. This hadith was fabricated. You may disagree though.

There should be little room for NOT answering non-muslims questions especially in cases like this. Some of them make fun like "hey if you ask muslims about this and that, they gonna tell you 'Allah knows best'". This is making fun of us. That's why in most cases, i am able to answer some silly things they post because I have been learning proper methodology for 6 yrs now. It helps.

Let me give you example. A brother opened a thread some yrs back or maybe he was answering questions regarding prophet's marriage to Aisha(PBUT). It was questions about tawhid in the beginning until the whole thing turned around. A christian asked his view about 54 yr old's marriage to 6 yr old Aisha. The brother said that's "culture, it has nothing to do with Islam". A christian said 'but you said your prophet is a role model for everything". The brother replied same as above. Then the christian guy said does that mean we can not trust your prophet on the issue of marriage then?. That was the end of the thread. The thread still open. I just don't have idea where it is. Reading from the thread, the christian was 'sincere' in his quest for knowledge even though he might be frivolous at some point.

So I sometimes do not use mainstream view in debate. This is why many brothers here can not squash usermane. The guy is smart. But he can't crush them either. I was silently reading their arguments back and fourth last yr until i jumped in between. He had to give up on me because my method was different. He said it himself that he gave up on me. He studied and truly captured mainstream ideology and used it against them. Sorry for the long-winded post.

Truly, He is

Masha Allah brother, I found this hadith in a book. I've been trying to get the pdf, but I don't think it available. Probably maybe it's written in 'Urdu'. The hadith actually speaks about flogging of a married during Umar's time, it's found in Mussanaf Abdul Rahman(an early hadith collection written by a student of Abu Hurairah) :

"Hashsham bin Urwah, quoting his father reports; A woman from Yemen came to Madinah with the Hajj pilgrims. The caravan stayed in Harrah. When they departed they left the woman behind and a man came to Hazrat Umar and informed him that the woman had committed adultery. Umar called her. (Telling her background) she said that she became orphan in the childhood. She was destitute and had nothing. Nobody cared for her.

Urwah also said that the woman was married. Umar sent a man to call back the caravan. The people verified the statement of the woman. Umar ordered to inflict her with 100 lashes. He then gave her clothes and conveyance and asked the people of caravan to take her with them." (Musnaf Abdur Razzaq quoted in Haqeeqat-e-RajmP.107)

Abuamam:

He is a quranist. There is no difficulty in debating a quranist who accepts logical reasoning... using the correct methodology. The reason why you were more seemingly successful is because he was less used to your system; not because you were right, and most deviant sects are trained to debate the orthodox view, while orthodox sunnis mostly do not bother specialising in debate with specific sects.

But again I repeat, Islam is not about winning argument.

I dont worry much about Quranite. I disagree with him mostly on obligatory duties and some others. But he makes valid points sometimes. No, my position is not about debating orthodox. I am part of the orthodox. But they definitely got some things wrong. This is not because of sects. I am not even talking about sect here. I dont belong to one. I generally listen to any and all scholars.

It always comes back to what THEY think of our laws. This has been opening doors to our 'apologisers', where we undermine the sources of Islam because we need to be ingratiating.

How I wish i can agree with you but unfortunately, this is not the case for me. I dont worry about what they think of Islamic Law so long as the law in question is backed with evidence.

What you do not seem to understand is that Islam is not to be taken piecemeal. It is a BODY of laws. That her daughter is menstruating is not an immedeate obligation to marry her off to an old man and have him instantly initiate sexual contact. That is the flaw in her question and it is the understanding of xtians, when they debate our laws.

Marriage also necessarily involves a God-fearing guardian, who should be able to assess his daughter's readiness for marriage. He should know of his daughter's physical and mental readiness for marriage; and act accordingly, not 'marry her off' at the first sign of menstruation. In modern times, girls are not trained for marriage from an early age, hence their mental maturity is very poor for their age. This has not always been so; and my mother tells me that her grandmother was married and built a successful home at 10years of age. My own grandmother gave birth to her first child at 13. She was an intelligent and confident woman up to her death. Individual cases differ, and the sheikh should have informed the woman of this.

I agree with this. This is brilliant exposition. But dont get me wrong, please. I hold the view that puberty in islam is when a girl experiences her cycle not age. I dont defer on that. I only defer on Aisha's age. I would have believed related hadith on Aisha(RA)'s age IF there is no another conflicting hadith. The later contradicts the former. Scholars only bid on the former ignoring the later.

Empiree:
"Stoning to death" for adultery is abrogated by Qur'an. It was old law prescribed for Moses and Jesus(AS). The new law is flogging which came down with prophet Muhammadﷺ

Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4207:

Imran b. Husain reported that a
woman from Juhaina came to
Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) and she had become
pregnant because of adultery. She
said: Allah's Apostle, I have done
something for which (prescribed
punishment) must be imposed
upon me, so impose that. Allah's
Apostle (may peace be upon him)
called her master and said: Treat
her well, and when she delivers
bring her to me. He did
accordingly. Then Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him)
pronounced judgment about her
and her clothes were tied around
her and then he commanded and
she was stoned to death. He then
prayed over her (dead body).
Thereupon Umar said to him:
Allah's Apostle, you offer prayer
for her, whereas she had
committed adultery! Thereupon he
said: She has made such a
repentance that if it were to be
divided among seventy men of
Medina, it would be enough. Have
you found any repentance better
than this that she sacr ficed her
life for Allah, the Majestic?

Quran prescribes flogging, Muhammad stoned people to death.

truthman2012:



Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4207:

Imran b. Husain reported that a
woman from Juhaina came to
Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) and she had become
pregnant because of adultery. She
said: Allah's Apostle, I have done
something for which (prescribed
punishment) must be imposed
upon me, so impose that. Allah's
Apostle (may peace be upon him)
called her master and said: Treat
her well, and when she delivers
bring her to me. He did
accordingly. Then Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him)
pronounced judgment about her
and her clothes were tied around
her and then he commanded and
she was stoned to death. He then
prayed over her (dead body).
Thereupon Umar said to him:
Allah's Apostle, you offer prayer
for her, whereas she had
committed adultery! Thereupon he
said: She has made such a
repentance that if it were to be
divided among seventy men of
Medina, it would be enough. Have
you found any repentance better
than this that she sacr ficed her
life for Allah, the Majestic?

Quran prescribes flogging, Muhammad stoned people to death.

Thank you for your contribution.

Don't forget to shut the door as you leave.

Abuamam:


Thank you for your contribution.

Don't forget to shut the door as you leave.

Why should I leave? If you don't want me to contribute you should have gone to your exclusive section na o!

ogbeni, if I were you I would be shamed. This thread it's not really about Christians but I do welcome your contributions. My point is you should be concerned about your scripture because it's mandated therein that penalty for adultery is stoning to death. So if you think you can make fun here you are definitely kidding. Your law stands. Base on my studies of this subject, I maintained that previous laws revealed to prophets Moses and that which Jesus also confirmed are abrogated by Quran. which means if you insist Christianity is the way, you must accept law and punishments established in your holy book. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that Jesus abrogated old laws. My point is I'm proud that Muslims somehow believe "stoning" is mandated in Islam and they are ready to implement it. We are ready to enforce what you Christians shamelessly abandoned. So don't cry foul if a Christian is caught in the act in Muslim countries and penalty of rajm- stoning is pronounced on the fellow. so I say we enforced your law not ours and am proud of it.

truthman2012:



Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4207:

Imran b. Husain reported that a
woman from Juhaina came to
Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) and she had become
pregnant because of adultery. She
said: Allah's Apostle, I have done
something for which (prescribed
punishment) must be imposed
upon me, so impose that. Allah's
Apostle (may peace be upon him)
called her master and said: Treat
her well, and when she delivers
bring her to me. He did
accordingly. Then Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him)
pronounced judgment about her
and her clothes were tied around
her and then he commanded and
she was stoned to death. He then
prayed over her (dead body).
Thereupon Umar said to him:
Allah's Apostle, you offer prayer
for her, whereas she had
committed adultery! Thereupon he
said: She has made such a
repentance that if it were to be
divided among seventy men of
Medina, it would be enough. Have
you found any repentance better
than this that she sacr ficed her
life for Allah, the Majestic?

Quran prescribes flogging, Muhammad stoned people to death.

Empiree:
ogbeni, if I were you I would be shamed. This thread it's not really about Christians but I do welcome your contributions. My point is you should be concerned about your scripture because it's mandated therein that penalty for adultery is stoning to death. So if you think you can make fun here you are definitely kidding. Your law stands. Base on my studies of this subject, I maintained that previous laws revealed to prophets Moses and that which Jesus also confirmed are abrogated by Quran. which means if you insist Christianity is the way, you must accept law and punishments established in your holy book. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that Jesus abrogated old laws. My point is I'm proud that Muslims somehow believe "stoning" is mandated in Islam and they are ready to implement it. We are ready to enforce what you Christians shamelessly abandoned. So don't cry foul if a Christian is caught in the act in Muslim and penalty of rajm- stoning is pronounced on the fellow. so I say we enforced your law not ours and am proud of it.

So why is the thread here and not. at your section where we are banned?
The OP found a taqqiya site lying about stoning and triumphantly posted it.
A Sahih Hadith was then revealed by Truthman showing the prophet stoning and praying over that woman's body.

truthman2012:


Why should I leave? If you don't want me to contribute you should have gone to your exclusive section na o!

Ok. Do as you wish. It is just to stop you from making a f__l of yourself. We have discussed our issue and parted mutually satisfied insha Allah. Go open your own thread on whatever issue you may have.

Empiree:
ogbeni, if I were you I would be shamed. This thread it's not really about Christians but I do welcome your contributions. My point is you should be concerned about your scripture because it's mandated therein that penalty for adultery is stoning to death. So if you think you can make fun here you are definitely kidding. Your law stands. Base on my studies of this subject, I maintained that previous laws revealed to prophets Moses and that which Jesus also confirmed are abrogated by Quran. which means if you insist Christianity is the way, you must accept law and punishments established in your holy book. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that Jesus abrogated old laws. My point is I'm proud that Muslims somehow believe "stoning" is mandated in Islam and they are ready to implement it. We are ready to enforce what you Christians shamelessly abandoned. So don't cry foul if a Christian is caught in the act in Muslim and penalty of rajm- stoning is pronounced on the fellow. so I say we enforced your law not ours and am proud of it.

Islam is confusion and it is deliberately so by allahh. Quran stipulates flogging for adulterers and Muhammad went killing, a clear violation of allahh command, yet you cannot see anything wrong with that. Allah himself looked away from his prophet's usurping his power. Deception.

Where did you find death penalty for adulterers in Torah?

Have any of you seen Torah before?

Where did you read about Jesus not abrogating the old laws, do you believe what Jesus said in the bible?

basilico:


So why is the thread here and not. at your section where we are banned?
The OP found a taqqiya site lying about stoning and triumphantly posted it.
A Sahih Hadith was then revealed by Truthman showing the prophet stoning and praying over that woman's body.

I honestly did not know which section it's. so you are welcome to contribute.

Again, I think you missing my point. You have the same penalty in your holy BOOK but you shamelessly abandoned it. so u have no right whatsoever to try any mess with us

Empiree:
"Stoning to death" for adultery is abrogated by Qur'an. It was old law prescribed for Moses and Jesus(AS). The new law is flogging which came down with prophet Muhammadﷺ

do u even understand what u just post?

Blackfire:


do u even understand what u just post?

tell me more.....please

Empiree:
tell me more.....please

shebi na u be imam? Do u even know anything about islam? Which sect do u belong?

Empiree:
tell me more.....please

Ignore him bro. Troll alert.

Blackfire:

shebi na u be imam? Do u even know anything about islam? Which sect do u belong?

I see from your profile that you are an atheist. You are forgiven for your uncouth approach.

Abuamam:


Ignore him bro. Troll alert.

It takes a troll to call someone who is way out your level in intelligence, a troll.




I see from your profile that you are an atheist. You are forgiven for your uncouth approach.

and u should check my atheist comments, if it has no meaning to your life.
What if at the end of life,u find out u are wrong?that all u believed in are all lies? What if all ur zeals,at the end of life u hate urself for been such a fool?

Blackfire:


and u should check my atheist comments, if it has no meaning to your life.
What if at the end of life,u find out u are wrong?that all u believed in are all lies? What if all ur zeals,at the end of life u hate urself for been such a fool?

I would ask you the same... but I already know what your final destination would be; if you remain where you are today.

Believe me, I am very happy with my life. My submission to my Lord is not just a duty; it is a pleasure. I have tried your way. It is horrible.